Michele Bachmann is my home-girl. has lived in a nearby town for years, represented a nearby community in the Minnesota State Senate. I had one of her kids in my class at the U. And she’s the US Congressperson for the district that is just a few short blocks from where I live now .

In many ways, therefore, she has been a part of my life for a long time. And, now that Michele is officially running for President of the United States of America, I thought I’d repost some of the material on this blog written about her or her activities.

Instead of producing a new copy of each post, I’ll group them into a smaller number of posts for your convenience. This is the first one.Bachmann makes stuff up
Listen to the long list of Town Hall meetings Bachmann claims to have had or to have planned.

So far, she’s only had meetings more restrictive than those Bush has had. The one time she had a public meeting with actual public that I know of was the famous bathroom incident, but that’s another story…

Rep. Michele Bachmann will be headlining a fundraiser in November for controversial ministry You Can Run But You Cannot Hide (YCRBYCH).

Based in Annandale, Minn., the group has made a name for itself as an anti-drug Christian punk rock band that organizes motivational student assemblies to bring Christ to public schools. But over the last several years, parents and school administrators have complained that the ministry misrepresents itself, claiming that the group is not transparent about its Christian mission.

This is actually a fairly common problem in public schools. Groups represent themselves one way and end up spreading the word of jeebus once they get all the kids together in the auditorium. One motivational speaker that I know of has a totally christian mission theme, but promises to do no religious stuff whatsoever in the school. And he keeps his promise. but he also publicizes his web site heavily and guess what….

I am pleased to se somebody on the “scienceblogs” site who does not foam at the mouth over anybody who suggests we may not be experiencing catastrophic global warming.

On other sites here I have asked these sinmple questions to be met, not with any honest attempt to explain but insultsm obscenities and censorship, none of which, I am sure you will agree, are consistent with any respect at all for scientific principles.
==============================
1 – COMMENTS DELETED FOR VIOLATION OF BLOG COMMENTING POLICY

Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

Do you accept that the warming trend will cause the growth of arid regions where fertile regions are now, and may result in less crops altogether?

Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann’s refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

Do you accept that all the corrections still show the same warming, and that the preliminary report by a Koch-sponsered group of anti-warming researchers has shown the same warming trends?

Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore’s claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri’s claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was “voodoo” were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the denialist side, from Monckton to Plimer, were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Do you accept that the refusal of denialists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Of the alleged “consensus” – can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

Can you define just what you mean by “paid by the state”?
Have a research grant? Work for a university that accepts money from the state? Was once given a dollar for coffee by someone employed by the state?

Greg, don’t be so dismissive of Neil. Especially when you can’t explain why there is so much alarum about Carbon, which is necessary for life. How could something be both a poison and necessary for life?

#2 is a lie – and that’s why it’s not sourced to anything peer-reviewed. It includes complete ignorance of things like Liebig’s law of the minimum. It includes complete ignorance of the degree to which plants become tough, spindly, and unproductive. It doesn’t hold any factors constant for comparison. And so on.

#3 is a lie across the board, and a more obviously stupid lie nowadays, when the hockey stick has been confirmed independently by about 20 separate lines of evidence.

#5 Is mere assertion, not backed up by anything whatsoever. The closest we’ve had recently was a completely scientifically ignorant blurb for one sort of geoengineering from the quacks who write the Freakonomics books. Their sole source was MSFT alumnus and patent troll Nathan Myrhvold. Among the significant errors in his laughable analysis was a mistaken belief that solar panels are all black, and that their albedo negates their effect on climate change, and an absolute ignorance of the lifespan of an amount of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

#6 is a vague tendentious question-begging lie, straight out of Mark Morano – like most such GOP commenters on science, he’s a dirty tricks campaign operative, lobbyist, and PR specialist. His knowledge of science wouldn’t impress a 5th grader.

#7 is another lie, and makes no distinction between states (nations) to boot. That’s why it, too, is unsourced.

The entire list of questions is being spammed all over scienceblogs. It’s nothing but rote, robotic dittobot trollpoints. To not dismiss it is to waste the time of people with greater educational attainment and a stronger sense of civic responsibility with the repetitious lies of a pack of mechanistic, idiotic sociopaths.
#7

Michelle was just in Waterloo, Iowa & mixed up John Wayne w/ John Wayne Gacy….the serial killer. Gacy was born in Waterloo. John Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa.

Bachmann promised “to mimic the spirit of John Wayne in Waterloo”. Why does Michelle want to mimic the spirit of a serial killer?

She also received $260,000.00 in farm subsidies & her husband received $30,000.00 of federal funds for his clinic. Michelle just went on FOX & said “my husband & I didn’t receive a penny from the family farm”. But…..her financial disclosure forms say she received $32 grand & $105 grand between 2006 & 2009. Huh?

She also said 30,000 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes. Where is this substantiated? In addition, she said some members of Congress are un-American. It is her duty to gave names & positions immediately. Where is her press conference on her un-American colleagues?